NBC News: The Climate Campaign Against Meat is Distracting Attention From the Campaign Against Fossil Fuels
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Climate campaigners are worried that greens who go vegetarian to save the planet think they have done their bit.
Can vegetarians save the planet? Why campaigns to ban meat send the wrong message on climate change
Now more then ever, it’s vital that we continue holding transportation’s feet to the fire.
by Erin Biba / Aug.06.2018 / 3:34 PM ET
WeWork, the co-working mega-giant, recently instituted a new policy at its office spaces across the world: No more meat.
Amid some backlash, the company said the decision was an attempt to reduce its carbon footprint and overall impact on the environment. And while this is a truly noble mission, if you take a deep dive into the science of climate and carbon emissions, the policy starts to look half-baked. For one thing, it perpetuates a ubiquitous myth in climate change messaging that individual decisions are more important than the actions of industry.
Worst of all, the growing campaign against meat is shifting the focus away from the world’s worst carbon emitter — the fossil fuel industry. (One popular Netflix documentary in particular has gotten a lot of attention, despite its egregious factual errors.) Caring about the planet — and trying to do something about it — is a noble cause. But with the stakes as high as they are, accuracy in messaging is important. Indeed, the Trump administration just announced it is still planning on rolling back the fuel economy mandate set by the Obama administration. Now more then ever, it’s vital that we not turn away from holding transportation’s feet to the fire.
But according to renowned climate scientist Michael E. Mann, who has worked on the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Assessment Report — the report that gives a status report on the global climate — the way WeWork has framed its message is misleading. “It let’s fossil fuels off the hook. It’s implicitly accepting the notion that climate solutions are voluntary measures,” Mann told me. “They’re important. But it’s really frustrating to me when they say eating less meat. When it’s framed as if influencing the political process isn’t part of the constellation.”
Read more: https://www.nbcnews.com/think/amp/ncna896811
Normally it is entertaining to watch climate advocates squabble over which misery to inflict on us first, but the compromise solution in this case will most likely be to try to restrict private use of gasoline powered automobiles AND restrict meat consumption.
Naturally important people like our climate heroes will be excused from any restrictions imposed on ordinary people, their tireless efforts to save the world more than justifies their large personal carbon footprints.
Climategate 2 email 3980.txt (Michael Mann speaking)
… Looking forward to seeing you in Tahiti, we can enjoy some nice tropical drinks w/ umbrellas in them.
where are you planning on staying by the way? I haven’t decided yet. The cheap options sound way to spartan to me, but the nicer options are so expensive!…
Climategate 2 email 3980.txt (Phil Jones replying)
…As I’ve booked the flights on frequent flyer miles, I’m wondering if I can convince myself (my grant) that I can justify the hotel…
via Watts Up With That? https://ift.tt/1Viafi3